Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s refusal to fund post 16 education because there is not enough evidence of fault and because any fault did not cause injustice.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council has refused to continue funding alternative provision for his son after he completes Year 11.
2. Mr X explains says his son has chronic fatigue syndrome and cannot attend school. It took years to finally get the Council to fund online tuition. His son is now worried for his future.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. The Ombudsman investigates complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint, which we call ‘injustice’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We do not start or may decide not to continue with an investigation if we decide:

• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or
• any fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by Mr X and the Council.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. The Council has no legal duty to arrange or fund education after a child turns 16 unless the child has an Education, Health and Care Plan (“EHCP”).
7. Mr X’s son does not have an EHCP and therefore the Council was not at fault in refusing to fund his post 16 education.
8. Mr X says the Council previously told him an EHCP was not necessary and his son would not qualify. However, Mr X could have sought independent advice and pursued this further if he wished, including applying for an EHCP assessment and appealing any refusal if needed. We will not hold the Council responsible for injustice Mr X could have avoided.

Back to top

Final decision

9. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault and because any fault did not cause Mr X injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman